TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Income Tax (Appeal) is arbitrary, against law and facts on record. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in justifying the action of the assessing officer in which the assessing officer has disallowed the difference in the account of sundry creditor i.e. M/s ITC Ltd without appreciating the details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course of assessment proceeding. 1.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has failed to appreciate the fact that the sundry creditors as well as amount of purchase is supported with the documentary evidence and there is no single instances of bogus transaction as such amount of purchase shown in the books of account cannot be disallowed. 1.4 The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preceding year. While scrutinizing the balance-sheet of M/s Prabjyoti Marketing, it was noticed that the assessee had shown sundry creditor of Rs. 91,44,472/- in the name of M/s ITC Ltd. The AO issued notice u/s 143(6) to ITC Ltd. for confirmation of the account of the assessee in their books of a/c. ITC Ltd. confirmed a balance of Rs. 65,52,852/- as against the balance of Rs. 91,44,472/- in assessee's books of a/c. Thus, there was excess credit of Rs. 25,91,620/- in the books of assessee in the account of creditor M/s ITC Ltd. The assessee submitted following reconciliation of creditor's a/c as on 31-3-2007: Balance as per Prabjyoti Marketing Less: 9144472.40 1. Amount debited by ITC but not Credited by assessee. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tt. etc. 35921.00 Total As regards items reflected at 2.A, B & C, the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence in support of her contention. Hence the contention of the assessee for the booking of the excess sundry credit in the name of M/s ITC Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 4,63,596/- is not tenable. As' stated above, the assessee could not further reconcile the account with ITC Limited as required vide this office letter dated 15.12.-2009 and also could not explain the difference with the help of the books of account. Therefore, the accounts submitted above are not reliable and not acceptable. Considering all the facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee has further inflated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Difference in account 1,354 Rs. 26,12,420/- 2. M/s Jyoti Traders: Difference in account 86 Out of telephone expenses 657 Rs. 743 Rs. 27,78,373 Rounded off: Rs. 27,78,370/- 2.4. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to page 25 of the paper book, wherein the notice u/s 142(1) is contained in which AO had required the assessee to explain the following difference on the basis of letter dated 1- 12-2009 received from M/s ITC Ltd.: 1. Amount debited by ITC not credited b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under consideration the assessee had sent the goods amounting to Rs. 26,32,303/- as goods returned to ITC Ltd. against which the assessee got credit of Rs. 21,99,867/-. The assessee pointed out that since the credit for Rs. 21,99,867/- only had been granted as against the return of Rs. 26,32,303/-, the assessee had not accepted the same and, therefore, the said goods returnedhad been shown as stock in hand, lying with the ITC. In support of its contention, the assessee had submitted the stock statement. The assessee further pointed out that if the AO's contention was accepted then the gross profit would be 38.34%, as under: Particulars Amount Particulars Amount To opening stock 2215578 By sales 8893854 To purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year. As regards the addition of Rs. 35,921/-, the same had to be reduced by AO and not added. The AO will verify this aspect. 5.1. The main issue is regarding addition of Rs. 21,99,867/-. The assessee's plea is that though credit notes had been issued by ITC aggregating to Rs. 21,99,867/-, but in its books of a/c it did not account for the same because assessee had lodged the claim for Rs. 26,32,303/-, which the assessee continued to show in its stock register as a separate item, which is evident from page 93 of the PB. In order to examine the credibility of assessee's explanation, we have to consider the various aspects. The assessee, admittedly, was distributor of M/s ITC Ltd., and, therefore, had regular dealings with M/s ITC Ltd. C....